In 2011, Julian Assange was awarded a Walkley, Australia’s highest award for journalism.  The award was made for “contribution to journalism”.  Using one or more examples, critically discuss both the contribution and challenges presented to journalism by digital leaking in recent years.Hackett and Zhao (1998) claimed that from the liberal perspective, Journalism should play a vital role in upholding democracy by facilitating public discourse through the “promotion of transparency and accountability of governments, corporations and public bodies” (Dobson and Hunsinger 2016, p. 218). Schlosberg (2013) reasoned that conventional journalism remains haphazard in fulfilling this civic role and is constantly suppressed by the “structures of the contemporary nation-state in which it exists” (Dobson and Hunsinger 2016, p. 218). Julian Assange was awarded the Australian Walkley Awards in 2011 for his website WikiLeaks – ‘Most Outstanding Contribution to Journalism’ (Kevin 2012, p. 35). As its editor-in-chief, Assange had successfully emboldened the global public through his courageous, determined and independent stance for freedom of speech and transparency (Kevin 2012, p. 35). The United State’s (U.S) Justice Department stated that the main difficulty is establishing Wikileaks as a media organisation due to the “unprecedented scale and nature” of its leaked documents. Julian Assange affirmed that he had started WikiLeaks for journalists who were tired of censoring themselves – who had primary source material in their possession but couldn’t publish due to legal or space constraints (Rosner 2011, p. 1).  Rosner (2011, p. 1) claimed, “the current unique technological era has permitted proponents of transparent-democracy to reveal government secrets without compromising their own security”. The following essay will use the example of the “Collateral Murder” footage to critically analyse the opportunities and challenges presented towards journalism after digital leaking rose to global prominence. WikiLeaksclaimed to have constructed a “new model of journalism that openly involvessharing instead of competing against traditional media outlets” (WikiLeaks2010). Launched in 2007 by founder Julian Assange, WikiLeaks was designated asan online whistleblowing platform (Fuchs 2011, p. 49). Users are enabled toupload documents that will bring misconduct, government and corporate crimesand transparency visible to the general public while exposing “state-corporatesecrecy”. Peter Bart (2015, p. 24) claimed that WikiLeaks mirrors Uber’s[1]model and enabled “the uberization  of investigative journalism”. In the Uberworld, “no one explicitly works for or are beholden to anyone” (Bart 2015, p.24). Rather, WikiLeaks relies on sophisticated technological software to facilitateand merge genuine human interaction while protecting the identity of sourcesand ensuring the digitally leaked materials linger online (Lynch 2017, p. 315).Journalism scholar Jay Rosen pronounced WikiLeaks as “the world’s firststateless news organisation” when the official WikiLeaks Twitter feedexplicitly stated its location as “everywhere” (Meikle 2012, p. 54). WikiLeaksrose to worldwide prominence after releasing the “Collateral Murder” video on 5thApril 2010 (Rosner 2011, p. 1). The audio-visual piece showed an AmericanApache helicopter attack from 2007 that ultimately resulted in the deaths oftwo Reuters journalists, and over a dozen of civilians in a Baghdad street(Meikle 2012, p. 53; Rosner 2011, p.1). The footage brought WikiLeaks into thepublic consciousness (Dobson and Hunsinger 2016, p. 218). Image 1.0: A snippet of the footage from a helicopter perspective and an interpretation of the video through editing with added subtitles, added captions and text cards, which strongly direct the viewer (Meikle 2012, p. 54). Retrieved from: https://www.rt.com/news/396074-collateral-murder-video-anniversary/“CollateralMurder” was recorded through a weapon’s targeting cross hairs of several men strollingon the streets below (Meikle 2012, p. 53). The audio recording revealed thatthe helicopter crew believed the men were armed with weapons. When one of the menholding a large black object crouched behind a building, the crew hastilydecides it as a weapon and bombards everyone on the ground. When a black van pullsup and tries to help, the helicopter once again opens fire and shoots everyonein sight (Meikle 2012, p. 53). There were two children (not visible in thevideo) that were critically injured in the van. News sources such as BBC, The New York Times, and The Guardian picked up the video forglobal coverage. Contraryto traditional media, WikiLeaks presented its ability “to undermine powerrelations between governments, the media and the public by facilitating theexchange of potentially sensitive and previously censored materials” (Dobsonand Hunsinger 2016, p. 224). Hardy (2010) reasoned that traditional media areeconomically and politically suppressed by governments and corporations, whichhinders their effectiveness at publicly holding these institutional bodiesaccountable for their misconducts (Dobson and Hunsinger 2016, p. 225). Meikle(2012, p. 54) explained that collaborating with prominent news establishmentsin the publication of “Collateral Murder” would enable WikiLeaks “to draw onthe agenda-setting power, established viewers, and editorial and distributionresources of traditional news organisations”. Therefore, propelling theclassified materials to massive public attention that spreads far beyond theWikiLeaks site. Moreover, Rosen (2011) explained that WikiLeaks’ unprecedentedposition as a “stateless news agency” had successfully evaded state censorship.Its collaboration with traditional media partners further reiterated WikiLeaks“as an incidence of “networked” journalism” (Lynch 2013, p. 317).In its avowed battle for freedom of expression and speech, WikiLeaks is described as “a purveyor of Internet journalism”, indicating the emergence of a progressive “age of transparency” (Wahl-Jorgenson 2014, p. 2582). Taking account that WikiLeaks’ functions as both a source and distributor of materials, the emergence of the networked fourth estate can be seen to a certain extent, as a contribution to old media institutions (Benkler 2013). Benkler (2013, p. 13-14) outlined that the networked fourth estate encompasses the following components: “traditional mass media, mass media aggregation sites, professional-journalism-focused non-profits, non-profit organisations with peer production, a party press culture, and individuals undertaking a significantly prominent role in the media ecosystem” (Benkler 2013, p. 13-14). Dunn (2013) reasoned that the progressive course of journalism as a networked character “does not assume the evolution of media toward a new paradigm” (Brevini 2017, p. 4). Rather, WikiLeaks’ access to unfiltered, classified and “fresh and explosive” information presents old journalism mediums with a lucrative resource, as it is capable of lessening the cost of production and reproduction. For example, the precedent case of “networked journalism”, Panama Papers [2] leak had brought 400 journalists from different countries together for global coverage (Brevini 2017, p. 5). This presented that raw information obtained by “networked journalism”, such as WikiLeaks appeals to the “credible, critical lens of traditional investigative journalism” and thus, WikiLeaks and traditional media “is postulated to result in a symbiotic relationship of mutual dependence” (Dunn 2013, cited in Brevini 2017, p. 4). Dobsonand Hunsinger (2016, p. 226) stated that WikiLeaks’ disruptive counter power transpiresindirectly from its leaks. Rather, the precise, substantial impact is derivedfrom its capability to inform and potentially mobilize the public via digitalmedia utilisation. Without WikiLeaks’ challenging the official narrative, thegovernment could continuously provide a justification of the events that wouldhave remained unchallenged[3].Mass media, such as Reuters were denied access through traditional approachesand failed to make public the truthful account of the 12th July 2007events in Baghdad (Dobson and Hunsinger 2016, p. 226). The traditional role of operatingas a watchdog was undermined by the US military’s attempt to manipulate and misleadthe narrative to communities. Nonetheless, WikiLeaks was able to present analternative narrative – “the fact that two Reuters staff were victims served asa reminder to audiences about the function of news reporting in war”: there aretwo perspectives of stories in any armed conflict, the former being one’s owncountry and the latter from the opponent’s viewpoint (Fuchs 2011; Christensen2014, p. 2597). Furthermore, WikiLeaks operated as a transnational media thatexist within a nation-state but outside its clutches, simultaneous with anoverarching distribution network that disseminates information whileconstructing networks of freedom (Dobson and Hunsinger 2016, p. 218, 225). Byreleasing ‘Collateral Murder’, WikiLeaks upheld the transparency of the eventssurrounding the incident. WikiLeaks had uncovered political economy agenda byexposing “current day secret realities of warfare” while operating free fromoppressive forces and “indebted neither to states nor markets” (Fuchs 2011, p.59; Dobson and Hunsinger 2016, p. 228). Bart(2015, p. 24) explained that WikiLeaks introduced a novel method of reporting,an “uberization of journalism” based upon public accessibility and interpretabilityof information, at times even before professional journalists have access toit. Thus, giving a new set of actors their power to interpret and disseminatenews first-hand, at times even before news releases (Bart 2015, p. 24). The oldjournalistic role that is underwritten by corporations and governments are now tranquilizedby the new form of news where “masses of the individual public now work towardsconstructing the news, deciphering it and publicizing it, while developingdominant narratives” (Dobson and Hunsinger 2016, p. 230). Through the digitalleaking of ‘Collateral Murder’, WikiLeaks blew the whistle on journalism’s democraticregression; especially in the U.S. “The preposterousness of unilateral power,the disregard for human life, an organised opposition to transparency, and therepression of democracy through the elimination of citizen participation andknowledge” of the U.S government were publicly disclosed (Christensen 2014, p.2597). Christensen (2014, p. 2597) further maintained that it took “an act ofjournalism” to bring tragedies such as ‘Collateral Murder’ to light. Journalisticnorms such as reporting truthfulness, accuracy, upholding transparency and thenotion of democracy are upheld and thus, exhibiting digital leaking as acontribution to journalism (Christensen 2014, p. 2597).  Nevertheless,scholars have continued to argue the ways in which WikiLeaks challengesjournalism. As Bantz (1997, p. 133) asserted, the news is not the mereexhibition of raw information, but rather, an industrial process where storiesare articulated by crafting raw evidence into “non-fiction drama”, givingunfiltered information its shape, frame, and structure. Meikle (2012, p. 54)reasoned that for the most part, WikiLeaks does not generate news. Instead,WikiLeaks operates as a source of raw material for traditional news enterpriseswhile ensuring that the unfiltered information is accessible to the public viaits site (Meikle 2012, p. 54). Robert Stam once affirmed that news guarantees“tonight’s top stories, not tonight’stop facts” (Stam 2000, p. 367). Moreover,the interpretations of the ‘Collateral Murder’ video via editing (Image 1.0above, p. 4) projected it as an activist documentary rather than a news report(Meikle 2012, p. 54). Coddington(2012, p. 383) further reasoned that WikiLeaks violates every component ofprofessional journalistic paradigms, primarily by defying institutionalcharacterization with its geological and organisational fluidity. Predominantly,WikiLeaks engagements with reporting routines are limited-to-none, basicallyhaving no affiliation with the official sources. This is contrary toconventional journalistic practice, as Schudson (1989) describes, “the story ofjournalism on a daily basis rests upon the story of the interaction between professionaljournalists and official sources” (Coddington 2012, p. 381). This symbioticrelationship ensures a reciprocal dependence between parties, as respectivesides offer exclusive access to information that is valued by the other –reporters require continual “newsworthy” materials while sources requirepublicity and influence (Coddington 2012, p. 381). WikiLeaks and Assange have alsoconveyed unambiguous political goals through the ‘Collateral Murder’ leaks,including government transparency and the revelation of misconduct by the U.Sgovernment and huge corporations, therefore contradicting the journalism normof objectivity (Cohen and Stelter 2010). Keller, Times columnist, referred Assange as “a man who is vested in hisown agenda” and who was “openly contemptuous of the U.S government”, later alsomentioning the ‘Collateral Murder’ footage as “antiwar propaganda” (Coddington2012, p. 388). Christensen (2014, p. 2594) echoed the sentiment, stating thatthe very title of the footage was slated as a digression from facts, andserving as a de facto antiwar editorial instead. Although Times writer, Carr, recognised WikiLeaks’ engagement towardsjournalistic practices (partnering up with mainstream media outlets as a source),he remains insistent that “it was merely moving toward the journalisticparadigm specifically to tone down its advocacy” (Carr 2010). WikiLeaks’ most problematic challenge towards journalism comes from the ethical concerns from its online “crowd sourcing” – making an open call on the Internet for people to help unravel a problem (Ottosen 2012, p. 840; Tiffen 2011, p. 2). Unfortunately, due to the need for confidentiality and security to safeguard these sources and substantiate documents, WikiLeaks eradicated the chances to function as an “open, collaborative online endeavour such as the Wikipedia model” (Tiffen 2011, p. 2). Fowler (2011) mentioned “the WikiLeaks system keeps the background of its sources anonymous even to Assange. The question on the document’s legitimacy remains unanswered” (Tiffen 2011, p. 2). Therefore, when readers are unable to discover the underlying motives for the leak of all these material, the ethicality of WikiLeaks’ digital leaks will come into question (Ottosen 2012, p. 840). Furthermore, even after news outlets gain access to these leaks, they continue to be unable to provide a concrete explanation as to why the stories were leaked and ultimately, what was not leaked. Haugsgjerd (2011) stated that prominent news outlets including The New York Times and The Guardian had chosen to publish WikiLeaks’ materials before, insisting that the information provided has been vetted and are legitimate (Ottosen 2012, p. 840). However, the ethical dilemma remains and still poses as highly problematic.  Thisessay has discussed digital leaking by analysing WikiLeaks ‘Collateral Murder’footage’s impacts on journalism. Despite persistently deemed as controversial,Julian Assange’s platform has offered scholars with an effective framework to examinecentral issues. These include the traditional journalistic role of newsdissemination in the era of networked journalism, the Internet’s potential tofacilitate activism and the challenges posed upon the journalism realm with theemergence of online media. As Meikle (2012, 58) summarised, the release of‘Collateral Murder’ had propelled WikiLeaks to the political stage, explicitlypresenting the evolution of the media from “the broadcast paradigm of thetwentieth century into a multifaceted, twenty-first century convergent mediaecosystem” – new actors create news by circulating never-before-seendatabase-driven material. Unlike traditional journalism outlets that areeconomically and politically underwritten by governmental and corporate institutions,WikiLeaks’ digital operations enable “masses of the individual public” to usetheir own interpretability to form dominant narratives to be disseminated asnews (Dobson and Hunsinger 2016, p. 230). Therefore, in theory, upholdingjournalistic norms such as transparency, truthfulness, accuracy, and democracy(Christensen 2014, p. 2597). On the other hand, scholars also contended thatWikiLeaks challenges the professional journalism elements due to its operationof exposing raw information, which was argued as “not journalism” (Tiffen 2011;Ottosen 2012; Coddington 2012). From this perspective, WikiLeaks underminesjournalism ethical considerations, opposes the journalistic practice of havingan institutional characterization, but also contradicts journalisticobjectivity by slanting the ‘Collateral Murder’ release for advocacy purposes. Despiteso, news outlets collaboration with WikiLeaks continues to straddle the linesbetween conventional journalistic functions and new approaches. As Coddington(2012) stated, only time will tell if the traditional journalistic will evolveand welcome new models of journalism with an open mind, or it will remainunbending towards a wide range of innovative journalistic actors. Reference List: Bart, P 2015, “How ideas turned into a part-time occupation: the tyranny of technology has creative and cabbies singing the blues”, Variety, vol. 1, p. 24, Academic OneFile, EBSCOhost. Bantz, C.R “News Organizations: Conflict as a Crafted Cultural Norm” in D Berkowitz, (ed) 1997, Social Meanings of News, Sage, Thousand Oaks, California, p. 123-137. Brevini, B 2017, “WikiLeaks: Between disclosure and whistle-blowing in digital times”, Sociology Compass, Vol. 3, p. 1-11, Academic OneFile, Wiley Online Library.Benkler, Y 2013, “WikiLeaks and the Networked Fourth Estate” in B, Brevini, A, Hintz, and P, McGurdy, (ed), Beyond WikiLeaks: Implications for the Future of Communications, Journalism and Society, Palgrave Macmillan, London.  Christensen, C 2014, “WikiLeaks and the Afterlife of Collateral Murder”, International Journal of Communication, Vol. 8, p. 2593-2602, SwePub. Carr, D 2010, “WikiLeaks Taps Power of the Press”, The New York Times, 12 December, viewed 25 October 2017, .Cohen, N and Stelter, B 2010, “Iraq Video Brings Notice to a web site”, The New York Times, 6 April, viewed 26 October 2017, .Coddington, M 2012, “Defending a Paradigm by Patrolling a Boundary: Two Global Newspapers’ Approach to WikiLeaks”, Journalism & Mass Communication Quarterly, Vol. 89, no. 3, p. 377-396, Academic OneFile, SAGE Publications. Dobson, K and Hunsinger, J 2016, “The political economy of WikiLeaks: Transparency and accountability through digital and alternative media”, Interactions: Studies in Communication & Culture, Vol. 7, no. 2, p. 217-233, Communication & Mass Media Complete, EBSCOhost. Fuchs, C 2011, “WikiLeaks: power 2.0? Surveillance 2.0? Criticism 2.0? Alternative media 2.0? A political-economic analysis”, Global Media Journal: Australian Edition, Vol. 5, no. 1, p. 1-17, Communication & Mass Media Complete, EBSCOhost. Kevin, T 2011, “Julian Assange’s clear and present danger”, Eureka Street, Vol. 24, p. 35, Informit literature & Culture, EBSCOhost. Lynch, L 2013, “Wikileaks After Megaleaks”, Digital Journalism, Vol. 1, no. 3, p. 314-334, Supplemental Index, EBSCOhost. Meikle, G 2012, “Continuity and transformation in convergent news: the case of WikiLeaks”, Media International Australia incorporating Culture and Policy, no. 144, p. 52-59, Literature Resource Centre, EBSCOhost. Ottosen, R, 2012, “WIKILEAKS: ETHICAL MINEFIELD OR A DEMOCRATIC REVOLUTION IN JOURNALISM?”, Journalism Studies, vol. 13, no. 5/6, p. 836-846, Communication & Mass Media Complete, Routledge Taylor & Francis Group. Rosner, J 2011, “Can WikiLeaks Save Journalism and Democracy?”, Global Media Journal: Australian Edition, Vol. 5, no. 1, p. 1-6, Communication & Mass Media Complete, EBSCOhost. Tiffen, R 2011, “WikiLeaks and mega-plumbing issues- unresolved dilemmas revisited”, Global Media Journal: Australian Edition, Vol. 5, no. 1, p. 1-10, Communication & Mass Media Complete, ABSCOhost. The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists 2016, Giant Leak of Offshore Financial Records Exposes Global Array of Crime and Corruption, updated 3 April, viewed 28 October 2017, <.”>https://wikileaks.org/About.html>.[1] Aride-sharing business model that function through the ‘Uber’ smartphoneapplication that provides on-demand ride services. (Dobson and Hunsinger 2016,p. 218). [2] Documents containing classified confidentialfinancial information on affluent individuals and public officials. MossackFonseca, a Panamanian law firm was found to use their business for illegalpurposes, including tax evasion, neglecting international sanctions and fraud(The International Consortium of Investigative Journalists 2016). [3] ‘Official’reports by the US government remained inconsistent and contradictory of oneanother.  WikiLeaks’ leak of the“Collateral Murder” footage made it possible to confront with official accountsand allow for transparency. It exposed the discrepancies through the casualviewing of the video. The US military is seen to be willing and capable ofmanipulating the truth to construct a narrative they believe will be suitableto portray to the public (Dobson and Hunsinger 2016, p. 226). Get Help With Your EssayIf you need assistance with writing your essay, our professional essay writing service is here to help!Find out more